Liverpool & South West Lancashire FHS - Forum

I have found a record of marriage between a Charles Maddox who was born in 1774 and a Margaret Cotter, born 1770. Charles subsequently died in 1803, aged 28, so all the dates fit in.
However, they were married in 1787 with their first child being born in 1788 which means Charles married when he was 13 and a father when he was 14.
I understand the law allowed this at the time but I was wondering if anyone could tell me how common these young marriages were.

Regards,
Glen

From memory I believe the age of consent was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Sorry I wouldn't know how common it was though.

Thanks, May - maybe he was just a very mature 14 year old!

Linked to the same family: Charles was the first child of Robert and Mary Maddox. They went on to have at least 7 more children between 1774 and 1806 but the child born in 1795 (Elizabeth) is recorded as their 1st child and another birth in 1798 is described as their 3rd. Would it be reasonable to assume these rankings take account of children who had died and, in the case of Charles, a son who had married and had a family of his own?

I've usually found the rankings quite accurate so I am a bit puzzled by these.

Regards,
Glen

From: http://www.funtrivia.com/askft/Question16320.html

Up until as recently as 1929 the law in England [and Wales] allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to be legally married. This had been the case for many years previously although Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753 required the consent of parents or guardians to be obtained before a marriage could take place in such circumstances.

Under Lord Hardwicke's marriage act in 1753, the law was changed so that anyone under twenty one had to have the consent of guardians or parents, but there was no lower age limit. It also had to be celebrated in church and an entry had to be made in the parish register and signed by both parties. The law was introduced to in response to agitation on the part of the nobility, who were alarmed at the ease with which young heiresses could be trapped in indissoluble marriages, and have their money stolen!

Gwebb1 wrote:Would it be reasonable to assume these rankings take account of children who had died

I would imagine so, if of course the deceased child had actually been born alive.

Just to clarify: all the children born 1774-1795 were born alive but most seemed to die in infancy, apart from Charles who married in 1787.
Is it likely that when they said Elizabeth, born 1795, was their eldest child they were ignoring the others because they were no longer alive and ignoring Charles because he had married?

Regards,
Glen

To be honest I'm wondering if there is a missing generation here.

Robert and Mary having children from 1774 - 1806 seems a huge length of time.

The only way the vicar would have known that Elizabeth was their first child would have been if Robert and Mary said so.

I wonder if there are 2 Robert and Mary Maddox one having children from 1774 to 1790s and the other having children from 1795 to 1806ish

Just a thought and would alter the ages of the 2 possible Robert and Mary Maddox.

Added later after a look at Lanopc.
It certainly seems a bit odd I must say if she manages to have children for 30 odd years.

I know what you mean about the time difference between 1774 and 1806 and I was questioning it myself.
However, the father for them all is Robert Maddox (various spellings), a butcher.

All the children born between 1774 and 1788 have the address of Key St - Kaye St for the last one but I understand it is the same place(?). The child born in 1788 died in 1790 by which time the family had moved to George St which is the address given on the baptism records for all the other children and on Robert's burial record.

I expected to find that Robert had re-married between the birth of the child in 1788 and the birth of the next one in 1795 and thought this would esplain the longevity of his fathering experiences. However, the baptism record of the child in 1795, the one which first records the seniority of the children, also says that the parents were married in Hawarden. This information is repeated on the baptism record for Nancy, born 1798 and described as their 3rd child.
The marriage record I found in Hawarden is for Robert Maddock marrying Mary Connah in 1774 i.e. before the birth of their real first child, Charles. Robert is described as being a butcher from St Peters, Liverpool.
Another interesting/confusing fact is that marriage banns were issued for the couple on 10 Jan 1774 but this is also the date of their marriage by licence!

For all these reasons I felt it was most likely that Mary Connah was the mother of all Robert's children despite the age issue but could not explain the seniority issue. I have found 3 possible births for Mary in Flintshire: 1751, 1754 and 1759.

Any views most welcome.

Glen

Oops - forgot to mention that the baptism records identifying the seniority of the children and the marriage details of the parents also give the mother as being Mary Connah - hence you can see why I don't think there has been a remarriage or a missed generation.

Glen